You Cut - Voting on budget cuts

[Perchoutofwater]

This is pretty cool.

[jetsfan]

Eliminate the Proposed Federal Employee Pay Raise

Approximately $2 Billion in the First Year

(Approximately $30 Billion Over Ten Years)

As part of his budget, President Obama proposed providing federal civilian employees with a 1.4% pay raise next year. This year Federal employees received a 2% raise and since the year 2000 have received raises averaging 3.6% a year. USA Today recently reported that the typical federal worker is paid 20% more than a private-sector worker in the same occupation (median salary). This doesn’t include the value of benefits like health care and retirement. This proposal would expand upon the just enacted legislation to prevent Members of Congress from receiving a pay raise. This proposal would not impact the scheduled 1.4% pay raise for those in the military.

 

While the link is cool, it is not at all accurate (shocking from the USA Today). I choose to make about 1/2 the salary that I could in private industry to work for NASA. Most of the DOD people that I work with also make less than in industry. We choose our jobs here because we feel we are making a difference for humanity. To tout that we make more money than the private sector is flat out wrong.

[i_am_the_swammi]

thats actually not a bad idea in principle, but I am guessing many of the items presneted here will gain support from those who's economic standing slant their point of view.

 

For instance, I am guessing there was significant support for the welfare bill that will be voted on this week. The rich don't like their money going to the poor. I am sure most of the people that voted are computer-owners, and likely, in higher-income brakcets. The voice of those already on welfare was not heard loudly, I would guess.

 

Conversely, if there was a bill that negatively affected higher-income brackets, the majority expressing their disdain would indeed be those same voters.

 

Computer-based voting (even though there is a phone option) certainly slants toward the higher-income brackets.

[Kid Cid]

thats actually not a bad idea in principle, but I am guessing many of the items presneted here will gain support from those who's economic standing slant their point of view.

 

For instance, I am guessing there was significant support for the welfare bill that will be voted on this week. The rich don't like their money going to the poor. I am sure most of the people that voted are computer-owners, and likely, in higher-income brakcets. The voice of those already on welfare was not heard loudly, I would guess.

 

Conversely, if there was a bill that negatively affected higher-income brackets, the majority expressing their disdain would indeed be those same voters.

 

Computer-based voting (even though there is a phone option) certainly slants toward the higher-income brackets.

Agreed. Plus, it's only a couple of hand picked areas that are offered as cuts. How about a 10% across the board cut? Or maybe 15% reduction in military spending? Reduction in the size of the Department of Education?

 

I'm all for the American people having a direct say in how our money is spent, but providing misleading, false or otherwise manipulative information is worse than not having any info at all.

[dmarc117]

so these votes are going to actually matter unlike the ones we cast for the liars in dc???

[Perchoutofwater]

Agreed. Plus, it's only a couple of hand picked areas that are offered as cuts. How about a 10% across the board cut? Or maybe 15% reduction in military spending? Reduction in the size of the Department of Education?

 

I'm all for the American people having a direct say in how our money is spent, but providing misleading, false or otherwise manipulative information is worse than not having any info at all.

 

It is my understanding that there will be new options each week. Like you I would prefer across the board cuts. I'd love to see a 10-15% across the board cut. I'd also love to see all unfunded mandates be eliminated so as not to put an unnecessary burden on the states, that in many cases the states don't want in the first place.

[evil_gop_liars]

Silly.

 

How about this one.

 

 

#2 Pencils for Congress

$142 in Savings in the First Year

($1420 Over Ten Years)

#2 pencils are no longer used. Everybody uses pens.

[Ursa Majoris]

Pathetic. Where are the defense, SS, education, farm subsidies and other options that would actually make a difference? Piling this lot together would be less than a drop in the ocean.

[Perchoutofwater]

Suspend Federal Land Purchases

$266 Million in Savings in the First Year

($2.66 Billion Over Ten Years)

Last year Congress spent $266 million acquiring additional federal lands at the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. This is a 138% increase over the comparable amount of funding just four years ago. Given that the federal government already owns 29% of the land in America and has a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog to maintain current land holdings, suspending new federal land purchases for five years would permit the government to focus on maintaining existing property while also saving taxpayers millions of dollars a year.

 

This is the one I voted for. For one it was the largest cut. Second, why does the government need to buy more land? If anything, they should be selling some of what they have as we can't afford to maintain it, and it would help in reducing the national debt.

[bushwacked]

Republican.Whip.house.gov?

 

A website encouraging people to rally for deficit reduction brought to you by the people who were in control of congress for 6 years with George W.

[wiegie]

This is the GOP being serious about the budget?!? Seriously?!?

 

If the GOP is truly worried about the consequences of the deficit, then focusing on crap like this is the equivalent of fixing a dripping faucet on the Titanic.

[Perchoutofwater]

Pathetic. Where are the defense, SS, education, farm subsidies and other options that would actually make a difference? Piling this lot together would be less than a drop in the ocean.

 

You did see eliminating mohair subsidies right. You also did listen where he said there would be different items each week, and there was a place for you to suggest items. I'd love to see all the things you mentioned on this list, and I might even suggest a few others, but I'm not going to discount this as pathetic. It is a start in the right direction, of course maybe you don't want to go in that direction.

[Perchoutofwater]

This is the GOP being serious about the budget?!? Seriously?!?

 

If the GOP is truly worried about the consequences of the deficit, then focusing on crap like this is the equivalent of fixing a dripping faucet on the Titanic.

 

You're right, they shouldn't suggest any cuts at all, what's the point.

[Ursa Majoris]

This is the one I voted for. For one it was the largest cut. Second, why does the government need to buy more land? If anything, they should be selling some of what they have as we can't afford to maintain it, and it would help in reducing the national debt.

$2 billion over 10 years is not even worth bothering with. It isn't even tinkering, it's completely pointless.

 

This is the GOP being serious about the budget?!? Seriously?!?

 

If the GOP is truly worried about the consequences of the deficit, then focusing on crap like this is the equivalent of fixing a dripping faucet on the Titanic.

Exactly.

[Azazello1313]

Eliminate the Proposed Federal Employee Pay Raise

Approximately $2 Billion in the First Year

(Approximately $30 Billion Over Ten Years)

As part of his budget, President Obama proposed providing federal civilian employees with a 1.4% pay raise next year. This year Federal employees received a 2% raise and since the year 2000 have received raises averaging 3.6% a year. USA Today recently reported that the typical federal worker is paid 20% more than a private-sector worker in the same occupation (median salary). This doesn’t include the value of benefits like health care and retirement. This proposal would expand upon the just enacted legislation to prevent Members of Congress from receiving a pay raise. This proposal would not impact the scheduled 1.4% pay raise for those in the military.

 

While the link is cool, it is not at all accurate (shocking from the USA Today). I choose to make about 1/2 the salary that I could in private industry to work for NASA. Most of the DOD people that I work with also make less than in industry. We choose our jobs here because we feel we are making a difference for humanity. To tout that we make more money than the private sector is flat out wrong.

 

well, it depends. there have been pretty extensive studies on this indicating that, while what you say is true in some fields, by and large, when you factor in benefits and everything else, federal employees are paid very handsomely in comparison with their private industry counterparts. then add to that the fact that most federal employees are looking at near 100% job security, which is worth quite a bit by itself. frankly, by any reasonable standard, it's pretty ridiculous that federal employees got an across-the-board 2% pay raise this year. that is, of course, on top of all their scheduled within-grade step increases, etc. it just doesn't make much sense. but I won't complain too much.

[Ursa Majoris]

You did see eliminating mohair subsidies right. You also did listen where he said there would be different items each week, and there was a place for you to suggest items. I'd love to see all the things you mentioned on this list, and I might even suggest a few others, but I'm not going to discount this as pathetic. It is a start in the right direction, of course maybe you don't want to go in that direction.

It is not a start, it is a joke. Mohair subsidies? Why not farm subsidies across the board? Bah - this just panders to the foolish who have no conception of scale.

[Perchoutofwater]

$2 billion over 10 years is not even worth bothering with. It isn't even tinkering, it's completely pointless.

 

 

Exactly.

 

If everyone holds your attitude, then we will never get of the mess we are in.

[Ursa Majoris]

If everyone holds your attitude, then we will never get of the mess we are in.

You miss the point. When dealing with deficits and debts such as ours, wasting time on mohair subsidies is the equivalent of shifting sand off a beach with a teaspoon. You need a backhoe or even a dragline. Tackle the big rocks first.

[evil_gop_liars]

If everyone holds your attitude, then we will never get of the mess we are in.

Wrong.

 

If everybody holds your attitude congressmen will be using single ply instead of double ply toilet paper. whoop-de-doo.

[bushwacked]

Who is gullible enough to take this seriously?

[Yukon Cornelius]

providing misleading, false or otherwise manipulative information is worse than not having any info at all.

dont tell the 2 major political parties and talk radio blowhards , they will melt down.

[Perchoutofwater]

It is not a start, it is a joke. Mohair subsidies? Why not farm subsidies across the board? Bah - this just panders to the foolish who have no conception of scale.

 

Like I said to Kid, I like to see 10-15% across the board cuts everywhere, education, defense, welfare, medicare, etc.... We didn't get where we are overnight, and unfortunately we aren't going to get back to where we need to be overnight. We the exception of defense and the major social programs, we are dying the death of a thousand cuts. We need to start addressing these smaller things, as they will be expodentially easier to cut than the major redistributive programs started by the left. I love the way you have become condescending lately. Well, I do have a pretty good concept of scale, probably better than most. I know that in order to walk a mile, you have to take a first step.

[Ursa Majoris]

Like I said to Kid, I like to see 10-15% across the board cuts everywhere, education, defense, welfare, medicare, etc.... We didn't get where we are overnight, and unfortunately we aren't going to get back to where we need to be overnight. We the exception of defense and the major social programs, we are dying the death of a thousand cuts. We need to start addressing these smaller things, as they will be expodentially easier to cut than the major redistributive programs started by the left. I love the way you have become condescending lately. Well, I do have a pretty good concept of scale, probably better than most. I know that in order to walk a mile, you have to take a first step.

If you want 15% across the board, why are you touting a site that clearly is trying to whip up fervor among those that really have no concept of scale? The items listed are pfffft - worthless in the greater scheme and, further, would take valuable time and attention away from addressing the things that really need to be done.

[Yukon Cornelius]

worthless in the greater scheme and, further, would take valuable time and attention away from addressing the things that really need to be done.

+1

Look there is a chicken.........

Edited May 19, 2010 by Yukon Cornelius

[Azazello1313]

Who is gullible enough to take this seriously?

 

 

obama supporters?

 

Orszag, who has had to scramble just to get to this point, said more savings will be found as the administration works its way through this year, but the $17 billion can’t be dismissed as “chump change by anyone’s accounting.” Obama sounded the same theme in brief remarks at the White House, and the administration is still keeping open the option of calling for targeted cuts of specific spending earmarks added by lawmakers.

 

 

“Some of the cuts we're putting forward today are more painful than others,” Obama said. “Some are larger than others. In fact, a few of the programs we eliminate will produce less than a million dollars in savings. Outside of Washington, that's still a lot of money."

 

aww shucks, outside of washington that's still a lot of money